PDA

View Full Version : Definition of Min/Max



Thrawn183
2007-02-02, 04:23 PM
Which of the following do you believe is the definition of min/maxing?

Min/Maxing: The intentional boosting of a stat or ability (ie, ability in melee combat) with the express intent of causing the least harm to other dimensions of your character, be they mental or physical.

or

Min/Maxing: The intentional boosting of a stat or ability while also having a corresponding weakness (usually similar in severity and impact) in some other area.

Edit: This poll is in response to the thread created by Shazzba looking for an answer to this question. I felt like it got off topic and decided to see if I could help out a little.

Journey
2007-02-02, 05:16 PM
Which of the following do you believe is the definition of min/maxing?

Min/Maxing: The intentional boosting of a stat or ability (ie, ability in melee combat) with the express intent of causing the least harm to other dimensions of your character, be they mental or physical.

or

Min/Maxing: The intentional boosting of a stat or ability while also having a corresponding weakness (usually similar in severity and impact) in some other area.

Edit: This poll is in response to the thread created by Shazzba looking for an answer to this question. I felt like it got off topic and decided to see if I could help out a little.

The first one represents the ultimate goal of a min/max attempt, but doesn't really capture its true essence because it is an ideal.

The "max" component of "min/max" is "maximization of benefits in all actions the character will engage in."

The "min" component is "minimization of negative aspects/disadvantages."

The second one can be min/maxing depending upon whether or not the "usually of equal impact" component can be realistically expected (if it can't be, then it's a min/max attempt).

Lots of examples were given in the other thread. The one that sticks out is the Athas character taking "allergy (fish)" as a flaw (which is laughable in a desert campaign setting) in order to gain some other bonus that actually matters in such a setting.

It's important to note that some min/maxers think they can be clever and provide an ad hoc "RP" justification for their choice. The allergic Athas character's player might say, for example, "Oh, my character comes from a sea faring community but because of his allergy he had to leave or die so he came here via mystic portal/long lost continent/etc."

Thomas
2007-02-02, 06:22 PM
Benefits with no weaknesses. If it were just specialization (strength there, weakness here), it would be called specialization. "Minimize/maximize"; you don't intentionally minimize ability in some area - you minimize weakness or disadvantage.

The most simple and straightforward instance of minmaxing is taking some sort of disadvantage, in a point-based game, that never comes up or never in practice affects you adversely.

Khantalas
2007-02-02, 06:24 PM
To semi-quote Minmax:

"I traded literacy for plus +1 to hit."
"Another bonus?! What's your attack bonus, anyway?"
"You don't wanna know."

Ted_Stryker
2007-02-02, 07:08 PM
No weaknesses.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-02, 07:46 PM
How about being a barbarian who dumped charisma down to the minimum allowable level in order to put more points into strength because your party includes a bard with max charisma and charisma-based skills?

Zincorium
2007-02-02, 07:58 PM
How about being a barbarian who dumped charisma down to the minimum allowable level in order to put more points into strength because your party includes a bard with max charisma and charisma-based skills?

It would, but it simultaneously falls under specializing. It's a small weakness in almost any situation, since if the bard is present and conscious he would do those sort of tasks anyway (he's a bard, his player is gonna cry if anyone takes the 'face' role from him and does it poorly), but if you don't have that bard around, it can be a major weakness.

Thomas
2007-02-02, 11:25 PM
How about being a barbarian who dumped charisma down to the minimum allowable level in order to put more points into strength because your party includes a bard with max charisma and charisma-based skills?

Like Zincorium says, that's a bit of both. I'd say, in most D&D games, it's sort of min-maxing (but not enough to make a difference; the lowest you can go is 8, you're expected to have one 8 in the standard point-buy or array, and Cha is the least useful ability for a Barbarian). How often do Barbarians need Cha? Not often. Their only Cha-based skill is Intimidate, which pretty much sucks, so it's effectively no weakness at all.

Edit: I wouldn't say it can ever be a major weakness. When you don't have Diplomacy, Bluff, etc. as class skills, your Charisma score won't effectively make any difference. Whether it's 8 or 12, you won't be making any Cha-based skill checks after the first level or two.

TheOOB
2007-02-02, 11:40 PM
Min/Maxing is getting as big of an advantage as possible while minimizing your disadvantages. For example, a ranged blaster mage who takes the Noncombatant flaw is min/maxing, they are getting a bonus feat for a penalty that will never matter for their character. Similarly, someone playing a dwarf barbarian with a 6 CHA is probally min-maxing, if they never plan on making a CHA based skill roll then a low CHA holds no disadvantage for them.

Thomas
2007-02-02, 11:43 PM
Yeah, but again... that's also the only reasonable choice for the low ability score. Int? You lose skill points. Wis? You hurt several class skills. Dex, Con, Str? No way - those are obviously any barbarian's main abilities.

And creating a wizard with Strength 15 in point-buy (or using an array) is just plain foolish.

belboz
2007-02-05, 01:16 PM
The tricky thing here is the line between optimization--maximizing strengths and minimizing weaknesses so that a character is strong enough to meet the challenges it will face--and min/maxing--optimizing to the point where there's some negative impact on the game (such as a lack of challenge in encounters).

Is that distinction entirely based on a value judgment? Yes. Is it hard to figure out exactly where the line is, even for yourself? Yes. I think that's where these debates get bogged down so often. there's a very fuzzy line somewhere between the extremes of "I'm not going to give my wizard 10 int and 16 strength," on the one hand, and "I'm going to use the Tricks of the Masters to design my character to completely blow the CR system", on the other.

Thomas
2007-02-05, 01:18 PM
Yeah; min-maxing does usually imply something abusive (why would you need a specific term for it otherwise?); GURPS and Rolemaster are classic vessels for abusive min-maxing.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-02-05, 01:29 PM
Funny. After 15 years in games, this is the first time I've ever came across the notion that min/maxing means getting a big advantage and a big disadvanatage.

Everywhere else I've ever seen that term used or used myself, it has always meant: "To minimise one's weaknesses and maximise one's strenght's". It has never meant anything else up to now.

TheElfLord
2007-02-05, 01:34 PM
Funny. After 15 years in games, this is the first time I've ever came across the notion that min/maxing means getting a big advantage and a big disadvanatage.

Everywhere else I've ever seen that term used or used myself, it has always meant: "To minimise one's weaknesses and maximise one's strenght's". It has never meant anything else up to now.

I agree Cyborg, before seeing the thread that inspired this one I never would have considered using min/maxing as a positive term. In my group it is on the same level as munkin and power gamer in terms of negativity.

Dark
2007-02-05, 02:14 PM
I think the shift in meaning is due to D&D's "team game" assumption. A barbarian who takes disadvantages that are completely compensated by the presence of a bard is min/maxing -- his disadvantages don't mean much in play because there is a bard. However, if you look at just the barbarian on his own, he has glaring weaknesses. So the line blurs.

In less class-based systems this doesn't show up as much, since you can't rely on the other characters to fill certain roles. I think the closest analogue you get in GURPS is the party of four where three characters are Dead Broke [-25], and one character is Wealthy [20]. Taken together, those four have five times average wealth, and an extra 55 points. Taken separately, well, three of them are inconveniently penniless :)

A GURPS GM is apparently supposed to stop the wealthy character from bankrolling his friends, but I don't see how that can work in play. Does the GM say "No, your character doesn't want to do that" a lot?

LotharBot
2007-02-05, 02:15 PM
To me, Min/max has always meant "take absurd penalties in areas that don't matter in order to squeeze every little bit of advantage out of your character" -- creating a character with unreasonable strengths and hidden weaknesses. This is the character that takes a flaw of "allergy(fish)" in the middle of a desert campaign, finds a way to drop their CHA to 3, finds the most broken and unbalanced feats, and so on. Or, in computer games, this is the character who takes CHA 3 and STR 3 and 18s in everything else and knows exactly how many fights they have to survive before they can pick up the magic items that boost their two dump stats to 18 as well.

As to where you draw the line for "unreasonable", compare the player to the rest of the party. Are they significantly more powerful than expected? Is their character so tweaked that, if you ever exploited their one weakness, everyone would know you were just going after them?

Dark
2007-02-05, 02:24 PM
Is their character so tweaked that, if you ever exploited their one weakness, everyone would know you were just going after them?
I think that's part of the implicit contract when you choose disadvantages :)

If you take Allergy(Fish) in a desert campaign, then the only way to secure peace and hospitality from the nomad tribe will be to eat the High Chief's prestigious imported fish stew.

Journey
2007-02-05, 02:32 PM
I think the shift in meaning is due to D&D's "team game" assumption. A barbarian who takes disadvantages that are completely compensated by the presence of a bard is min/maxing -- his disadvantages don't mean much in play because there is a bard. However, if you look at just the barbarian on his own, he has glaring weaknesses. So the line blurs.
The traditional definition of min/max has been around in previous editions of D&D, so this new definition in terms of "relative to the group" or "minimizing some positive traits and maximizing others" has nothing at all to do with D&D in and of itself.

I think it's specifically the 3.x system that has encouraged this new outlook on "min/maxing." As I've said, and I'll agree with the two others, above, the thread that prompted this one is the first I'd ever heard of "min/max" used in anything resembling a positive note.

I had never before seen it mean anything other than "maximizing strengths and minimizing weaknesses." And this isn't in the bland specialization sense but the "how far can I bend the rules without breaking them" (and sometimes it doesn't even stop there, especially if we're dealing with a munchkin).


A GURPS GM is apparently supposed to stop the wealthy character from bankrolling his friends, but I don't see how that can work in play. Does the GM say "No, your character doesn't want to do that" a lot?

This is also something I've noticed that may just be peculiar to my groups. In every game I've played (in person, anyway), the GM has the absolute final say on every aspect of every character in the game. Some have been more restrictive than others--a couple of GMs I know provide a list of characters that the players can choose from (and then stats, background, etc. are generated accordingly with some bartering)--while others give players more freedom.

In any case, the GM ultimately rejects parts of or entire characters if they're too unbalanced. I don't think that's unreasonable. After all, the GM is the one responsible for making an entertaining and challenging game. If all the players munchkin, min/max, and splatbook their characters into quasi-invincibility that task becomes futile.

Dark
2007-02-05, 02:56 PM
This is also something I've noticed that may just be peculiar to my groups. In every game I've played (in person, anyway), the GM has the absolute final say on every aspect of every character in the game.
Do you mean the GM says "No, you can't be Dead Broke unless everyone takes that", or do you mean the GM tells the Wealthy player "No, your character doesn't want to pay for that"? I can read it either way, but if you mean the first then it's far closer to my own experience.

However, in D&D I've never had to impose restrictions on character power. If anything, my players were max/miners :) I well remember the drow fighter/magic-user/thief in the wild elf campaign. He lasted less than one session.

(Background info: in 1st edition multiclassing, a fighter/magic-user/thief is going to start with about three hit points, and can hope to get a fourth hit point by the time everyone else gets up to level 3. And wild elves will basically attack drow on sight.)

Khantalas
2007-02-05, 03:12 PM
DM: Your character doesn't want to attack the ogre.
Barbarian: What? What are you talking about?
DM: Your character won't attack the damn ogre.
Barbarian: But I'm a friggin' barbarian! I'm the scrapper of the party! Why won't my character not attack the ogre?
DM: Because John is unable to fight the ogre and win.
Barbarian: What? What's that have to do with it?
DM: Well, since you're around, he didn't feel like making a strong combatant character. In fact, he has no weapons and a strength of 6. But he has tons of other stuff. That reeks of min-maxing. So, until he gets a combat ability comparable to yours, you won't attack anyone.
Barbarian: But John's a halfling bard! His job is to stay away from the battle and sing? Would you make him unable to do that until I rival his talent in that, too?
DM: Actually, yes.
Barbarian: Whatever, dude. I'm out of here.

Thomas
2007-02-05, 03:19 PM
Do you mean the GM says "No, you can't be Dead Broke unless everyone takes that", or do you mean the GM tells the Wealthy player "No, your character doesn't want to pay for that"? I can read it either way, but if you mean the first then it's far closer to my own experience.

Actually, in this particular example, any reasonable GM would note that the other PCs are not, in fact, Dead Broke, since they keep getting money from the Wealthy PC; and therefore the other PCs shouldn't have the disadvantage Dead Broke...

Journey
2007-02-05, 04:07 PM
Actually, in this particular example, any reasonable GM would note that the other PCs are not, in fact, Dead Broke, since they keep getting money from the Wealthy PC; and therefore the other PCs shouldn't have the disadvantage Dead Broke...

Yes, exactly, and he would enforce the decision.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-02-05, 05:54 PM
I vote 'neither' because neither one is correct as they are currently worded.

cupkeyk
2007-02-06, 12:32 AM
Actually, in my 15 years of gaming, this is the first time I have heard it defined as Maximizing advantages and minimizing disadvantages. I think any character without any social skills renders himself lame. We call them nappers, blasters and tanks that are so essentially useless outside of combat that they fall asleep during most of gameplay then we wake them up for the fight. I guess it becomes a matter of perspective. I just can't imagine playing a character without any investigative(scrying, track, urban tracking) or social skills. I would just fall asleep (ergo, nappers) and waste my time playing.

We once had a party with one Melee Fighter, one scry-and-die coma mage, a druid zoomaster. The melee fighter just gave up. He left the group because not only was he only useful in combat but the other two was better in combat than he was. *shrug*

Thomas
2007-02-06, 01:18 AM
I can't see how a character can be rendered unviable for roleplay by their abilities (or lack thereof). Even the most charismatic D&D Fighter is going to be useless in any social situation where SKILLS are involved, but is just as useful in actual RP situations. Being a "napper" sounds more like a matter of player disinterest (or inability) than anything else.

Stephen_E
2007-02-06, 06:24 AM
I consider both definitions to be accurate.

I personally use the 2nd type of minmaxing, but also describe people doing the 1st as minmaxing as well.

I've never considered a lack of social skills a problem with social situation roleplaying. I'm a Orc with a Charisma of 4. I'll take 1 rank in exotic dance and try and get a partime job as a male stripper. I also try and hit on female NPCs in a niceish but completly socially inept way.

If you have no social skills your job becomes to assist the party face in a way that gives him some challenge, but without totally screwing what he's doing. :smallbiggrin:

Stephen

Jayabalard
2007-02-06, 09:02 AM
min-max = minimum sacrifice for the max gain.

though lots of people use it for the other meaning (or at least think they do).

Tormsskull
2007-02-06, 10:04 AM
I remember in my early days of D&D when people would try to push the boundaries it wasn't that big of a deal. You would occasionally hear a lot of things from the DM like "Would your character really do that?" Eventually someone pushed the boundaries so far that they nearly broke, these people were called a number of things. A Min-Maxer was a term that specified how exactly the person was stretching the boundaries.

clarkvalentine
2007-02-06, 10:10 AM
though lots of people use it for the other meaning (or at least think they do).

I always used it to mean minimize that which is irrelevant to your character while maximizing what is (a 4 Charisma? A 5 Int? Who cares? I'm a tank and I got my 22 Str and 20 Con!!!)

cupkeyk
2007-02-06, 04:09 PM
Being charmingly socially inept actually requires charisma, please. It's a skillful ploy, a hand that you play; not something miscreants stumble upon. As for CHA 4 Orcs DANCING NAKED would make abyssmal rolls and would still be ugly. I dunno about you but I like my strippers pretty, I think it matters for either sexual preference and gender. Bah, when Caramon was a drunk with a beer belly He still had 20 STR and I wouldn't touch him to hurt him.

But then the CHA 4 Orcs would go on at around 3 AM when I have my beer googles on.

I just love it when social miscreants try to help and screw stuff up for the game. I just pat them on the back and tell them to go back to sleep.


I always used it to mean minimize that which is irrelevant to your character while maximizing what is (a 4 Charisma? A 5 Int? Who cares? I'm a tank and I got my 22 Str and 20 Con!!!)

Now this is min-maxed in the third definition. That tank will be out for the count after an empowered Ray of Stupidity. Maximized Liability and not actually very useful.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-06, 04:18 PM
Let's examine the Charisma scores of several monsters:

Nymph=19
Harpy=19
Mind Flayer, Sorcerer lvl 9=24

Therefore charisma does NOT necessarily equal beauty.

cupkeyk
2007-02-06, 04:40 PM
Charisma is both social savvy and beauty. I think harpies are hot. If you read the Greyhawk books and look at any of Mika-Oba's Daughters Pics (whose name eludes me right now) you would think that the MM is inaccurate cause hot damn, she's sex. Mind Flayers and harpies get Charisma due to manipulation skills. A 4 Charisma Orc would be butt ugly and socially inept.

LotharBot
2007-02-06, 04:49 PM
Charisma is not about "beauty" so much as "strength of personality".

Things that would give you low charisma include:
- ugliness, including such things as bad teeth or bad hair
- dorkiness and other forms of social ineptitude
- tendency to be shy/"fade into the background"

Things that would give you high charisma include:
- good looks
- "general coolness", including confidence, competence, eloquence, etc.
- outgoing personality, especially with leadership qualities

We have a 6-charisma elf rogue in our party. Part of that is his unibrow (heh heh heh), but mostly he just doesn't have social skill. He's unsure of himself and doesn't really present good, compelling arguments. He's also being played by an inexperienced player who is unsure of himself and doesn't really present good, compelling arguments, which makes him a very believeable character.

belboz
2007-02-06, 08:07 PM
I think there was a long thread on charisma some time back, but I'm inclined to go with LotharBot's interpretation. It's not beauty (as Woot Spitum pointed out), and it's not social skills, which are the...er...social skills (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, etc).

Charisma is that certain *something* that, independent of physical beauty, puts all eyes on you when you enter a room, and makes everyone listen when you open your mouth. It certainly *helps* with social skills, but it's not the same thing.

cupkeyk
2007-02-06, 09:28 PM
I dunno... I have this inclination to think that people who totally factor beauty out of charisma are ugly. *shrug*

It's totally both personality and beauty. Ugly people get to talk to the hand. Beautiful people get to talk to the man. Strength of personality, social graces and from there the skills and definitely beauty.

Woot Spitum
2007-02-06, 09:40 PM
If beauty is an important factor in determining charisma, explain this to me: Imagine an astoundingly beautiful sorceress. She has decided to become a lich, and the process will essentially turn her into a gaunt, skeletal creature. You'd think this would have a negative effect on her charisma, but the process actually raises her charisma by +2!

Stephen_E
2007-02-06, 10:09 PM
I dunno... I have this inclination to think that people who totally factor beauty out of charisma are ugly. *shrug*

It's totally both personality and beauty. Ugly people get to talk to the hand. Beautiful people get to talk to the man. Strength of personality, social graces and from there the skills and definitely beauty.

Probably the lowest Charisma person I've ever known (probablyaround 5-6) wasn't actually ugly. He wasn't good-looking, more homily. In fact his brother who was good-looking had almost identical features, but slightly different proportions ecetre made the difference between good-looking and homily. Why was his charisma low? He no sense of others personal space, bad breath, no awareness of how little interest people might have in the topic he wanted to talk about, graceless (but not actaully clumsy). To be fair he wasn't the total non-entity type low charisma (the sort of person you don't remember after meeting) instead he was infamous amongst people who'd met him for his low charisma. On paper he was a quite competent person, but no one could beleive it on meeting him.

Stephen

Dan_Hemmens
2007-02-07, 01:29 PM
Neither.

It's "maximising your advantages in areas where they will help you, by maximising your weaknesses in areas that will not affect you."

The point is not that a min-maxed character has no weaknesses, it's that a min-maxed character has huge glaring weaknesses which are more than covered up by his huge stonking advantages.